MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 15566: Autonomic Modulation by Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Who Benefits?

2020· article· en· W3160388470 on OpenAlexaffabout
Catherine F. Notarius, Daniel A. Keir, Mark B. Badrov, Philip J. Millar, Paul Oh, John S. Floras

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of GuelphUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionMicroneurographyCardiologyHeart failureHeart rateInternal medicineVO2 maxAerobic exercisePhysical therapySpirometryBlood pressureBaroreflex

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Elevated muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) both at rest and during dynamic cycling relates inversely to peak oxygen uptake (VO 2peak ) in patients with heart failure due to a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We observed a drop in MSNA both rest (-6±2 bursts/min) and mild exercise (-4±2) in HFrEF patients after 6 months of cardiac rehabilitation. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that after training those HFrEF patients with LOW VO2peak (less than median 74% of age predicted) would have a larger decrease in MSNA during dynamic exercise than those with HIGH VO2peak (over 74%). Methods: In 21 optimally treated HFrEF patients (5 Female) (13 HIGH: mean VO 2peak =26 ml·kg/min; 98% of predicted; 8 LOW VO 2peak =12; 50%) we assessed VO 2peak (open-circuit spirometry), heart rate variability (HRV) and fibular MSNA (microneurography) at rest, during 1-leg cycling (2 min each of mild and moderate intensity upright 1-leg cycling, n=19) and recovery before and after 6 months of exercise training (45 min aerobic exercise, 5 days/ wk at 60-70 % of VO 2peak; and resistance training 2 days/wk). Results: HIGH and LOW groups had similar age (63±3 vs 63±4 years) , LVEF (30±2 vs 28±3%), BMI, resting heart rate (HR), blood pressure and MSNA (52±3 vs 50±3 bursts/min). Training increased VO 2peak in both groups (main effect P=0.009), with no group difference in HR response or ratings of perceived exertion. MSNA at rest tended to decrease after training in the HIGH but not LOW group (interaction P=0.08). MSNA during cycling increased in both HIGH (P=0.04) and LOW (P<0.001) groups but was blunted post-training in the HIGH group only (P=0.04 vs. 0.90 in LOW). Training-induced sympatho-inhibition during exercise recovery occurred in the HIGH but not LOW group (interaction P=0.01). In contrast, HRV was not improved by training in either group. Conclusions: Contrary to our hypothesis, the sympatho-inhibitory effect of 6 months of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation favours HFrEF patients with an already normal VO 2peak . This suggests that increasing initially low VO 2peak may be insufficient to trigger beneficial exercise and recovery autonomic modulation and altered training paradigms may be required in such patients. Funded by Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR)

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→